Separation of Church and State

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, December 12, 2008 Sklar v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, No. 06-72961

formatting link
Sorry, Harlan, you may have to register to read it.

The jist of this decision is that agreements the IRS makes with the Church of Scientology are not applicable to other religious groups. WoW!

Dick

Reply to
Dick Adams
Loading thread data ...

I think this is the jist of the decision (right or wrong):

"The Tax Court concluded that the Sklars were not

similarly situated to the members of the Church of

Scientology who benefitted from the closing agreement.

While we have no doubt that certain taxpayers

who belong to religions other than the Church of

Scientology would be similarly situated to such

members, we think it unlikely that the Sklars are.

Religious education for elementary or secondary

school children does not appear to be similar to the

"auditing" and "training" conducted by the Church

of Scientology."

Reply to
Gil Faver

snipped-for-privacy@panix.com (Dick Adams) wrote in news:gi1aln$d54$1 @reader1.panix.com:

I could download that document, and indeed, WOOOW!!!! Paying for an educational service of the Church of Scientology is a tax deductible contribution, but not if you substitute Orthodox Judaism for Scientology?

I admit that Scientology and Judaism are not comparable, but I would have thought Judaism (or any other religion) to be more deserving than scientology.

I kust be missing the essence of the arguments behind the Appelate Court decision.

Please enlighten me!

Reply to
Han

You don't need to register. The 9th Circuit has it's own free web site:

formatting link

My understanding, or rather my take on the decision, without getting into whether Scientology should even be deemed to be a religion at all, is that the 9th circuit essentially held that being required to pay for church training that is religious in nature (Scientology - whether you believe in it or not) is quite different than paying for an basic, state mandated, education for a child that might also include (some) religious training when preformed by any religious organization.

They took that position so that they would not have to rule on the Sklar's argument that what the IRS agreed to allow for one religion had to apply to all religions. The Court simply said that the two just do not compare.

However, and very important, they did say, speaking about the "secret" "closing agreement" between the IRS and Church of Scientology and quoting the lower court:

[quote] Applying [Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. at 246-47,] to the policy of the IRS towards the Church of Scientology, the initial inquiry must be whether the policy facially discriminates amongst religions. Clearly it does, as this tax deduction is available only to members of the Church of Scientology...

..Because the facial preference for the Church of Scientology embodied in the IRS¹s policy regarding its members cannot be justified by a compelling governmental interest, we would, if required to decide the case on the ground urged by the Sklars, first determine that the IRS policy constitutes an unconstitutional denominational preference under Larson,

456 U.S. at 230, 102 S. Ct. 1673. [end quote]

Essentially they said that they believe that the IRS agreement with the Church of Scientology is unconstitutional and even if the Sklar's prevailed in their argument that they should receive equal treatment, that would be equally unconstitutional.

But while THAT was not the case before them -- they clearly telegraphed how they might rule if and when THAT case does come before them.

Reply to
Ernie Klein

(balance snipped.....)

Which just goes to show you, "the best things in life are free."

ChEAr$, Harlan

Reply to
Harlan Lunsford

Ernie Klein wrote in news:ecklein- snipped-for-privacy@news.newsguy.com:

So, who is going to (have to) file that case so the "closing agreement" gets invalidated?

Asked by a biochemist, not a tax or legal person.

Reply to
Han

Wow if it were true. The jist of this decision is that there is a legal "closing agreement" between Scientology and the IRS. To date this decision has not been available for public review. The IRS has legal grounds, it claims, not to publish it. This Court disagrees. The Court simultaneously holds that the Sklars (of xyz religion) do not get a tax break for payment for religious instruction blah blah, for the usual blah blah reasons. It is not at all clear whether Scientology gets a tax break that other religions do not get.

Bear in mind too that there is evidence the IRS discriminated against the Church of Scientology for years.

One should get all the facts before passing judgment on this one, IMHO.

Reply to
honda.lioness

Don't know. Besides the Church of Scientology what other religion "charges" it's members for religious instruction/training?

The court clearly said that school type education similar in nature and cost to like education in other private schooling even when it is done in a religious setting that the parents choose only because of the religious nature of that setting and religious education is not comparable to the Church of Scientology's auditing and training.

Reply to
Ernie Klein

against

In my opinion, Scientology is just another scam. However, people may believe in what they want, regardless of how outlandish. Faith requires no proof, and if they want to believe that the Human race was in fact seeded by an extraterrestial (not "God"), that's their problem.

Cases like the above make me feel that the exemption case regarding "The Venusian Church" (circa 1976) should be overturned. At least that case was able to be ruled a scam without having to attack the actual belief system. However, with Scientology validated, "nothing" is a scam anymore.

Reply to
D. Stussy

gist

Reply to
honda.lioness

And also remember that the 9th Circuit is the one that is most often overturned when it hits the Supremes. I would little in the 9th Circuit is done until the Supremes pass.

Reply to
Kurt Ullman

The 9th Circuit has certainly had a higher proportion of decisions overturned than any other circuit in recent years. However even at that the overrule rate is extremely low.

Stu

Reply to
Stuart Bronstein

Good question! I thought the IRS would file to seek to recover taxes due. There must be something fishy with that secret agreement.

Reply to
dapperdobbs

Kurt Ullman wrote:[snip]

Not on tax decisions.

Reply to
Alan

IMRHO this case may make to Johnny and the Supremes. Whether or not they hear, it is another issue. The argument needs to be if Scientology relegious education is tax deductible and other relegious education is not, we have a tacitly State supported Church. I do not know the history of this case well enough to comment on whether or not that is the issue being raised.

Whomever said taxes were fair was drunk at the time. Whomever said taxes were logical was trying to get a laugh.

Dick

Reply to
Dick Adams

Nobody laughed.

But if the cost of Scientology education is tax deductible, why is not the cost of minister, priest, and rabbi education also tax deductible?

Whenever taxation seems logical, it means Congress was asleep at the switch.

Dick

Reply to
Dick Adams

It can only get to the Supremes if the loosing party (the Sklar's) appeal. If they do, the only issue to be decided is the Sklar's contention that they should enjoy the same deductions as members of the Church of Scientology enjoy, not whether those deductions themselves are even legal. The Sklar's didn't questions the legality of the Scientology deductions, only that the Sklar's want it also. That would be the only issue for the Supremes to decide. It would be highly unusual for the Supremes to step outside of, and rule on an issue not in the record presented to them.

Reply to
Ernie Klein

But not even remotely unheard of, especially if they perceive Constitutional issues such as the above, lurking in the shadows. Still, if I was a betting man, I would say the odds aren't all that great in this case.

Reply to
Kurt Ullman

That's not unusual when I go on stage. Still, I keep trying.

Because becoming a minister, priest or rabbi actually has some real value over and above the religious indoctrination. My thought is that it would be as if priests started charging for confessions. It has no real value in the world, so my guess is that it might be deductible.

For some reason I have this need to find logic where it doesn't exist. That's what the law is supposed to be about, after all.

Stu

Reply to
Stuart Bronstein

You need a writer.

My opinon too.

Ah, that's the problem. Laws are written by lawyers who think like you. Taxation is written by the 535 Congresscriters who have a history that proves my point. ;)

Dick

Reply to
Dick Adams

BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.